If we view communication as being between a sender and a receiver, I feel like sometimes we put too much emphasis on the sender and not enough on the receiver. Take a speech, for example. A presenter (sender) cannot get the audience (receiver) involved and engaged if people are sitting their on their phones.
Now, if someone says "my gosh, these interest rates are truly appalling" and someone else says "oi, these banks are nicking our dough and giving nuffing back, fam", they're saying the same thing but in a different way. If someone writes an essay about socio-economic inequality and someone else raps about how difficult life is in the ends and how the government aren't helping them, they're talking about the same topic just through different means.
But if we don't listen to someone because of the way they have learned to communicate - whether it's because of their accent, their grammar, their Art GCSE instead of a Political Journalism degree - it's the equivalent of staring at our phones whilst the presenter is trying to involve the audience. And just like that audience, we're not just losing a fantastic opportunity to learn, we're sending our own message that we don't care. We don't care about the time, attention or courage that it's taken to express themselves. We are telling them that our lives are more important than theirs. We are allowing difference to get in the way of essential dialogue. See if you can recognise and overcome your own biases.
On that note, listen to "Have You Heard George's Podcast?" because it is amazing and
inspired this quick post.
Happy volunlistening,
The Voluntraveller
Comments